International – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Hungary Leaves the International Criminal Court

Earlier this month, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban declared that the country would withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), becoming the first European Union member state to pull out of the decades-old global institution. This decision came during Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Hungary, where Orban refused to comply with his ICC-mandated responsibility to arrest the Israeli Prime Minister, thus rejecting the legitimacy of the court’s arrest warrants. Though an individual incident, this event is indicative of a global shift away from international institutions, raising concerns regarding the future and authority of the ICC and global organizations as a whole. As numerous countries, the United States included, fight against democratic backsliding, international law is crucial in ensuring democratic standards are upheld, making this withdrawal worth monitoring.

What is the ICC?

The ICC is a permanent international court designed to prosecute political officials and military members following their initiation or continuation of international law violations, specifically targeting perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. Unlike the International Court of Justice, the United Nations’ branch that pursues cases between nations, the ICC functions independently from any pre-existing international organization and focuses solely on individual responsibility and perpetration of crimes.

The idea of establishing a court of global accountability originated after World War I; however, the largest push came after World War II and the global outrage surrounding the Holocaust. While an international court had yet to be established, ad hoc tribunals were created, prosecuting Nazi military and political officials. In between then and the court’s creation, other ad hoc tribunals have been organized, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. These events popularized the establishment of a permanent, global court. In 1998, the UN General Assembly met in Rome, finalizing a treaty that would then become the Rome Statute, the foundational document of the ICC. 120 countries voted to establish the court, and by 2002, the statute was adopted, gaining the necessary 60 ratifications needed for it to enter into law, thus granting the ICC international legitimacy and authority.

Under the Rome Statute, the ICC is given universal jurisdiction, meaning that perpetrators of international law violations can be tried even if the events occurred in another country. This also grants the court the ability to investigate allegations, with claims being brought to the ICC or based on the suspicions of the institution. If the court finds that an individual has likely played a direct role in the initiation or continuation of a crime outlined by the ICC, an arrest warrant will be issued. As part of ratifying the Rome Statute, member states assume the responsibility to comply with these rulings and are expected to detain those who receive arrest warrants if they enter the nation’s territory. After detention, trials are conducted, and a final ruling is eventually made. Since the court lacks an overarching enforcement mechanism, this organization relies heavily on state compliance to maintain legitimacy. Without this, the ICC loses its prosecutorial power and therefore its purpose.

Large meeting at International Criminal Court. Seats in a semicircle around a large screen and panelists — Image 2: ICC Assembly of States. Source: Yahoo Images

Why is Hungary’s Withdrawal Important?

Though Hungary’s absence won’t single-handedly undermine the ICC’s functional capacity, it does signify the country’s shift away from global institutions and further descent into authoritarianism. Since Orban took office in 2010, the country has become an “illiberal state,” a term Orban uses with pride. This reality is demonstrated in his views on international institutions. When discussing his reasons for withdrawing, Orban expressed that “Hungary has always been half-hearted” on its commitment to what he stated was the “political court” of the ICC. Furthermore, under his regime, Hungary has isolated itself from the democratic values of the European Union, with Orban having captured public institutions and the formerly independent media. He has undermined judicial independence, creating a government oversight committee that tracks the domestic courts and placing partisan judges in politically important positions. Orban has also been consistent in his support of Vladimir Putin, criticizing EU-imposed sanctions on Russia and openly condemning support for Ukraine. These actions have ultimately isolated the country from the Union and its foundational values, thus undermining the EU’s efforts to foster a unified Europe.

Hungary’s rejection of the ICC is also representative of the current global climate, as there has been an international decrease in support for global institutions. Since the issuance of Netanyahu’s arrest warrant, several countries, such as Belgium, Germany, and France, have remained unclear as to whether they would comply with ICC orders, disregarding their responsibility as set out under the Rome Statute. Similarly, Europe has seen a rise in Euroscepticism, or a distrust in the authority of the European Union. This perspective has pervaded several powerful political parties throughout Europe, such as the Alternative for Germany Party in Germany, the Freedom Party in Austria, the Law and Justice Party in Poland, and the Georgian Dream Party in Georgia. These parties have openly criticized the authority granted to the EU and the need for sovereign countries to align their policies with an overarching institution. Meanwhile, numerous countries are reverting to conservative, traditional cultural and political norms, further increasing hesitancy toward a liberal international order that advocates for equality and progressive policies.

This shift is not unique to Europe, as the United States has also been open in its rejection of the ICC and other international institutions. Recently, the Trump administration has placed sanctions on ICC officials, signifying distrust in the court. Furthermore, the US has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, and certain branches of the United Nations. With one of the world’s hegemonic powers withdrawing and delegitimizing international institutions, it is understandable why this perspective has been normalized on a global scale.

Hungarian PM Orban talks at a European Union podium, with EU flags behind him — Image 2: Orban talks at the EU. Source: Yahoo Images

The Case for International Law and the ICC

While many argue that international law and institutions violate a country’s sovereignty, the reality is that this relinquishment can be viewed as necessary to ensure long-term stability. Historically, nations have been seen as fully autonomous, lacking international institutions to follow; however, this autonomy allows countries to encroach on the rights of others, whether domestically or internationally, thus creating instability that jeopardizes the rights and safety of individuals. By surrendering some control over an independent nation to an international body, sovereignty can be enhanced. For example, by allowing international policy to dictate environmental policy, sovereignty could be strengthened by enabling countries to live without fear of climate-related destruction. In the case of the ICC, by granting a global court the authority to enforce international law, egregious behavior can face punishment, hopefully deterring these actions and thus providing greater long-term stability. In other words, relinquishing some domestic power to an international agency can enhance aspects of sovereignty as countries can live without fear of external encroachment on their rights. So, while international law might not yet be perfect, there is an argument to be made that it is worth attempting to fix rather than rejecting it altogether.

Conclusion

Hungary’s withdrawal from the ICC is representative of a broader shift away from the modern-age liberal order. Though its absence won’t directly interfere with the court’s ability to try violators of international law, it does bring into question the future of the ICC and other international institutions, as numerous countries, both within the EU and beyond, see a decline in their support of democratic values and global organizations. However, not all hope is lost; if current member states can uphold their commitments to the Rome Statute, the ICC can remain a powerful authority and deterrent against committing egregious crimes. In doing so, trust in the ICC can be consolidated, ensuring it and other global organizations play a role in the future of international politics. Because of this potential, international law remains a cause worth advocating for, as it can help ensure long-term stability during a time of global uncertainty.

Peace Constitutions: Costa Rica and Japan

What do you know about peace and peace-building processes? If you have previously studied the concept of peace, you may have encountered peace constitutions and their role in promoting both positive and negative peace.

In peace studies, peace is not limited to the absence of violence (negative peace); it also includes the social and economic institutions and structures that sustain societies (positive peace). In other words, as Martin Luther King put it in his response to an accusation that he was disturbing the peace during the Montgomery Bus Boycott, “True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.” Learn more about peace from the fifth edition of David P. Barash and Charles P. Webel’s Peace and Conflict Studies, which elaborates on the aspects of positive peace, historical and current conflicts, nationalism, and terrorism.

Constitution on paper — Image 1: A written constitution. Source: Yahoo Images.

Constitution-building is the process of creating or amending that involves negotiating, drafting, and implementing fundamental principles and frameworks for a nation to work, according to PeaceRep. Peace agreements can be a constitution or have the constitution included within them. Charlotte Fiedler from the German Institute of Development and Sustainability analyzes the effects of writing a new constitution after conflict. This political scientist argues that constitution-making is part of the peace-building process, and empirical evidence indicates that it allows countries to start anew with a new governance framework, rethink previous regimes, and, therefore, improve their societal peace outlook. According to Fiedler, post-conflict constitutions are linked to trust-building, meaning that longer constitution-making processes are more successful in sustaining peace than shorter, forced processes. Both Japan’s and Costa Rica’s peace constitutions were drafted after conflicts, and both countries have seen respective benefits.

Japan’s Postwar Constitution

The 1947 constitution introduced more power to Japanese society by placing the military under civilian control, granting new rights to women, and reformulating the responsibilities of the imperial family. After WWII, Japanese cities were devastated, and post-conflict planning started. The U.S. diplomat Hugh Borton, who was part of these plans, claimed that Japan needed a new one: “to truly steer away from the imperial institution.” The Japanese wanted to amend their 1889 Meiji Constitution, but the Allies didn’t think this was enough. Therefore, General MacArthur created three principles to serve as an outline for a new constitution: no longer being able to wage war, a parliamentary system, and more power to the people.

After a lot of back and forth between the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers staff (SCAP), the Japanese cabinet, and the first post-war general election, a new constitution was drafted. The SCAP included in Article 9 that Japan would renounce the use of force as a tool for addressing international issues. Some agreed with this article, showing Japan’s commitment to peace, but others weren’t keen on the idea. Ultimately, it was amended to read that Japan would not keep armed forces strong enough for any acts of aggression

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution includes a no-war clause, in which the government renounces war as a means of sovereignty and refuses to settle disputes using military force. It also includes wording such as “We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time… we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world.” Because of the language in it, the constitution played a major role in shaping Japan’s national identity of pacifism.

Lessons from Japan

Image 2: Japan Self-Defense Forces in the forest. Source: Yahoo Images.

As established in “Peace in Theory and Practice” under Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution, a review by Lawrence W. Beer, an expert on the politics of Japan and other Asian countries, reveals a few lessons that these peace constitutions teach the world. First, a renunciation of war is acceptable, desirable, and realistic. Second, the military does not have to be the center of international and national planning; instead, the economy, democracy, human rights, and the environment should be the center of national security concerns. Third, major peaceful changes in culture and system are possible even in the most nationalist, military-driven nations. Despite these efforts and lessons, some government officials have worked to reinstate a stronger military force and larger access to arms. Hence, time will tell how Japan will uphold its pacifist identity.

Costa Rican Constitution

Costa Rica committed to peace and democracy after years of internal conflict and unrest. Early on, after gaining independence from Spain, Costa Rica focused on its internal development, avoiding prolonged conflicts and opting for defense rather than aggression. After a period of peace when the military focused on maintaining internal order, Federico Tinoco seized power through a coup and established an authoritarian rule heavily dependent on military power. Tinoco was not well received, and this dictatorship affected public opinion on the military and its role in society. The event that pushed Costa Rica to make its final decision to abolish its military was the 1948 Civil War, which left thousands dead and had people urging for a peaceful country. The aftermath of the civil war led to the decision that same year.

Painting celebrating the peace constitution of Costa Rica — Image 3: Painting celebrating Costa Rica’s peace constitution. Source: Yahoo Images

The codification of the 1949 constitution declared Costa Rica a neutral nation, prohibiting the use of force by its army. Article 12 states, “The Army as a permanent institution is abolished,” and instructs the funds to be allocated to public welfare programs instead. What was before the job of the military became the job of the civilian police force, whose main objective is community policing and human rights?

Finally, the Costa Rican Constitution, in Article 50, guarantees the right to live in a healthy and environmentally balanced environment, making both the state and the public responsible for conserving their natural resources. Following this article, the country has passed legislation to address fishing and mining, as well as utilizing renewable sources for a large portion of its energy.

Lessons from Costa Rica

Without the burden of military expenditure, Costa Rica was able to focus more on its social services, providing better resources for its nation. This investment in education and healthcare resulted in one of the highest literacy rates in Latin America and a healthcare system with universal coverage for its citizens. What’s more, fund reallocation allowed for the development of tourism, technology, and environmental conservation. Although a lot of money and arms are still poured into the police, the shift to a more peaceful and sustainable society is evident. Ultimately, Costa Rica’s stance on peace has had an impact on the nation’s structure and its reputation in the international arena.

These two countries are not the only ones with limitations on their military forces. Iceland, Mauritius, Panama, and Vanuatu have also decided to abandon the use of the military and instead rely on alliances, diplomatic relations, and geographical isolation for national defense. For other countries and territories, such as Micronesia, defense is the responsibility of others. For example, Monaco’s defense is the responsibility of France, while the Faroe Islands are under the responsibility of Denmark.

Leaning away from raising armies for aggression may improve international harmony. How it would affect internal conflict is an aspect to consider. Moreover, the logistics of maintaining a defense army, such as limitations on size and allies, are also important factors in this conversation. A peace constitution that abolishes the military may not be a popular reform in bigger countries such as the U.S., Russia, and China. Less threat of attacks may allow for further distancing from military expenditure. Ultimately, a peace constitution not only addresses negative peace but also leads to positive peace as resources are reallocated to fit the new goals and structure of each nation.

Russia/Ukraine War Update Until March 3, 2025: U.S. Relations, Deals, and Human Rights Violations

Image 1: Ukrainian soldiers on a tank, holding the Ukrainian flag. Source: Yahoo Images.

On Tuesday, February 18th, Russia and the U.S. began a discussion regarding an end to the Russia/Ukraine war. Along with talk about ending the war, the two countries spoke about making improvements to their economic and diplomatic ties. Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State; Michael Waltz, U.S. President Trump’s national security advisor; Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Secretary of State; and Yuri Ushakov, President Putin’s foreign affairs advisor, were present at the meeting.

If you’re asking yourself, “Wait, isn’t there a country missing from the meeting?” You would be correct. Ukraine was not present, nor were they invited to the meeting in which the future of their state was being discussed. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine would disregard any conclusion the meeting came to, as Ukraine had not been a part of it.

Ukraine received a great deal of American support throughout the Biden Administration’s term in office. Ukraine Oversight reports and tracks funding and aid that has come from the U.S. during the time period of February 2022 until December 2024. The total amount has been $182.8 billion. Of that total $83.4 billion has been used, $57 billion is obligated but not yet distributed, $39.6 billion has been appropriated but is not obligated to be paid, and $2.7 billion has expired. Ukraine has also received aid from the U.S. and other G7 nations, which are France, Japan, Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom, in the form of a loan program that would provide $20 billion to be paid from frozen Russian assets. The website further breaks down where the money has come from. The U.S. Department of State also offers explanations and breakdowns of what the money was spent on and the aid that was sent to Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has repeatedly thanked the U.S. for the aid Ukraine has received since the invasion in 2022. In 2022, President Zelenskyy gifted the U.S. Congress with a Ukrainian war flag. He has also thanked the American people on multiple occasions, as well as stated that their money is an investment in the security and future of Ukraine and its people.

U.S. President Trump recently stated that Ukraine had three years to put a stop to this war and that they (presumably meaning Ukraine) should have never started it to begin with. As was stated in my last blog in relation to the Russia/Ukraine war, Russia started the war by invading Ukraine in 2022. Russia also previously illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. To this day Russia still occupies Crimea. While Rubio had exclaimed his excitement for the end of the war and the concept of bringing Russia and the U.S. closer together, Ukrainian forces continued to be overwhelmed by the illegal invasion of Russian troops.

If you are interested in the human rights violations that occurred in 2024 regarding the Russian Ukrainian war, check out my blog post, Russia-Ukraine War Update and Interview With Ukrainian UAB Student. For this blog I will focus on recent developments about U.S. and Ukrainian relations, Ukrainian and European relations, and human rights violations committed by Russia.

Tensions Between Ukraine and U.S. Grow

Image 2: Two soldiers hold the American flag and the Ukrainian flag. Source: Yahoo Images.

Ukraine is a land rich in critical minerals such as ilmenite, which is used in the production of titanium. The vast potential of Ukraine’s critical mineral industry has been untapped due to war and state policies. Recently, the Trump Administration proposed that U.S. companies should have access to these mining pits for ilmenite in exchange for U.S. aid in the war.

The first deal that the U.S. proposed would have Ukraine pay $500 billion worth in minerals while receiving no guarantee of security. They would receive weapons and Ukraine would have to pay a debt for generations. This agreement was rejected by President Zelenskyy on February 15th because it did not protect either Ukraine nor the country’s interests. In an AP article, they talk of Ukrainians’ feelings of unease at the prospects of U.S. businesses on their land. Many people felt that too much would be given away in exchange for weapons.

The second agreement that was drawn up stated that Ukraine would give 50% of its entire revenue on natural resources into a fund. This fund would then be used to invest in projects in Ukraine. As of now, the projects that would be funded are not defined in the agreement and will be further defined in later discussions. This agreement still does not guarantee the security of Ukraine.

The success of this agreement would have been determined in part by the success of private investment in Ukraine’s mineral resources. The ongoing war and reconstruction of Ukrainian infrastructure could hinder investment into the mining of these minerals. With no outlines for Ukraine security, mining companies are hesitant about investing in the country. Mining is an extremely expensive industry, and with the threat of Russian attacks, it is extremely unlikely that a corporation would risk investing in Ukraine.

This new agreement was going to be discussed in person between President Zelenskyy, who traveled to the U.S. on February 28th, 2025, and President Trump. However, during the meeting, not much was able to be said as President Trump, who was seated next to Vice President J.D. Vance, yelled at Ukraine’s President. The mineral agreement was not signed, as was originally intended, during that meeting.

Ukraine has been struggling against Russian forces for three years. Comments made by U.S. defense secretary, Pete Hegseth that Ukraine must give up hope of regaining its territory or getting NATO membership, have poured salt on wounds that have not been given time to heal in the last three years. Ukrainians have been worried over the position they will be left in after a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine is decided.

For years, the overall Western consensus has been that no agreement will come at the cost of Ukrainians still living in places now occupied by Russia. That viewpoint may now be changing in the United States, and Ukraine and other nations located close to Russia fear that a break in the war will allow Russia’s military to regroup and potentially invade Ukraine again as well as other parts of Europe.

European Nations Uniting

Image 3: Stairway with Ukrainian flag painted on the walls. Source: Yahoo Images.

On Sunday, March 2, 2025, the leaders of Ukraine, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Canada, Finland, Sweden, France, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Britain, as well as the Turkish Foreign Minister, attended a meeting about Ukraine at London’s Lancaster House. This was done in a show of support for Ukraine. During the meeting, the leaders agreed that it was in everyone’s interest that defense efforts be expanded so that peace could finally be accomplished for Ukraine.

It is worth noting that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer still said that the support of the U.S. was critical for this plan to work. In other words, while Europe must be at the forefront of Ukraine’s defense, the U.S. must back the rest of Europe for the defense to work.

While Europe is attempting to support and back Ukraine, on March 3, 2025, U.S. President Trump officially paused all military aid to Ukraine in hope of pressuring President Zelenskyy into negotiating peace talks with Russia. These peace talks, if rushed, will most likely give Russia the upper hand and negate any hope Ukraine has had for regaining the Ukrainian land that is currently occupied by Russia.

Russia’s Continued Human Rights Violations

Image 4: Ukrainian flag standing over a destroyed building. Source: Yahoo Images.

Amnesty International stated that any peace talks that do not include justice and repercussions for the international laws violations and human rights violations that have occurred against Ukraine will only serve to prolong Ukrainian suffering. Throughout the three years that Russia has been invading Ukraine, Russia has continued to target civilian infrastructure.

Residential buildings, schools, cultural heritage sites, and hospitals are some of the civilian infrastructure that has been destroyed by Russian forces. In my previous blog about the war, I wrote that the summer of 2024 was the deadliest time for children in Ukraine. Children are the most vulnerable members of society. Russia’s disregard for the lives of Ukrainian civilians, specifically children, is a violation of human rights. Since the invasion of Ukraine, thousands of schools have either been destroyed or have fallen under the control of Russia.

During Russia’s occupation of Crimea, people have been convicted of discrediting Russian armed forces, which violates the right to freedom of expression. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that all people have the freedom of opinion and expression. When those freedoms are interfered with, it is a violation of human rights. Crimean Tatars who are imprisoned have also been denied medical care. Additionally, 6,000 prisoners of war (POW) continue to be detained by Russian forces. POW and civilians alike have been subject to torture. In the year of 2024, Russia charged at least 120 Ukrainian POWs with terrorism. Since then, they have all been executed.

It is estimated that, as of July 2024, 14,000 Ukrainian citizens had been wrongfully and unlawfully detained by Russia. There are reports of war crimes and crimes against humanity being inflicted on Ukrainian civilians. These offenses include torture, sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, and denials of fair trials. In Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), it is stated that torture or inhuman punishment is a violation of human rights.

Many Ukrainian civilians have been subject to arbitrary arrest, and over 50,000 Ukrainians have been reported missing. Arbitrary arrest is the unlawful arrest and detainment of a person by a government without due process. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that arbitrary arrest, exiles, and detentions are human rights violations.

In places occupied by Russia, 1.6 million Ukrainian children must attend schools, learn the curriculum, and abide by the rules of invaders, where Ukrainian children are deprived of learning their language, cultural heritage, and history. If students are to continue their Ukrainian education, they must do so online. This is in violation of Article 26 of the UDHR, which pertains to the right to education and the parents choice of their child’s education and Article 27 of the UDHR, which states that people have the right to participate in the cultural life of the community.

Conclusion:

As is stated in my last blog about the Russia and Ukraine war, there are a couple of things you can do to help defend human rights in this situation. The U.N. Refugee Agency and the Ukrainian Red Cross Society continue to send humanitarian aid to Ukraine. If you are able and willing, these sites take donations.

You can also help protect human rights by staying informed and reading reliable sources. Disinformation on Ukraine and Russia has run rampant, and when people turn a blind eye to the truth, it is easy for human rights violations to go on unchecked. Updates on the Ukraine and Russia war are occurring daily. Make sure to continue checking for updates and to keep yourself informed.

Rise of Right-Wing Populism in Germany’s Elections

On February 23, 2025, Germany held its federal snap elections, where it sought to reestablish stability in the parliament following the collapse of the previous government coalition. The results triggered global concern as Alternative for Germany (AfD), the country’s far-right party, finished second place, securing roughly 20% of the total vote and 152 parliamentary seats. Though the AfD will likely lack sizable influence within the parliament, unable to form a coalition and secure a majority, its rise in popularity prompts concern due to the party’s extremist ideology and questionable ties with the infamous Nazi Party. This electoral success also warrants discussion due to the impact wealth inequality played in achieving this second-place finish. Furthermore, AfD’s astonishing success aligns with a shift towards conservatism and democratic backsliding throughout Europe and the world.

Image 1: The AfD logo. Source: Yahoo Images

Understanding the Election Results

In a parliamentary system, a party’s presence in government tends to be directly tied to its popularity in an election, with seat allotment being proportional to the percentage of votes received. As Germany’s parliament has 630 seats, holding 316 is necessary to have a majority. However, due to the number of parties, it’s unlikely that one party will achieve over 50% of the vote, resulting in the formation of coalitions to meet this threshold. This method of governing allows more parties to have a voice in the government, therefore being more representative of its constituents; however, it can also lead to gridlock if coalitions cannot be created.

Parliamentary systems reflect the political sentiment of a given time, making the shocking rise in the AfD much more apparent and concerning. The recent election saw the platform nearly double its support from the 2021 election, receiving 152 seats in parliament, totaling 20% of the vote, and granting them a second-place finish. Regardless of its sudden peak in popularity, its vast list of controversies will likely prohibit the party from holding consistent power within parliament, unable to form a coalition, though efforts have been made in the past by moderate parties to work together on stricter immigration policies.

The incumbent party, the Union Parties (CDU/CSU), garnered 28.6% of the vote, which is represented by its share of 208 seats. Though it still finished first, its former coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), saw a dip in support, achieving only 16% of the votes, or 120 seats. Interestingly, this election saw an astonishingly high voter turnout of 82.5%, the highest it has been since the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990, highlighting the universal feeling of importance surrounding this election. Similarly, while one in five Germans voted for the AfD, almost 70% of voters view the party as a threat to democracy, implying a huge divide between the group’s supporters and its opposition. Between the high turnout and the division in AfD support, it is clear that many German citizens viewed this to be a critical election.

AfD poster. On the top is the German parliament building. Underneath reads "Our country, our rules" in German over a blue background. — Image 2: An AfD political campaign poster reading “Our Country, Our Rules.” Source: Yahoo Images

AfD Ideology and Actions

The AfD is home to traditionally conservative and undemocratic policies, having questionable ties to Germany’s infamous Nazi Party. Regarding policy, the AfD is largely centered around nationalistic ideals and nativist ideology. Leading up to the 2025 election, AfD party member Alice Weidel declared that, if voted as chancellor, she would support a remigration program, a large-scale, forceful return of immigrants to their native countries. This message was furthered through their use of Nazi-reminiscent advertisements, which exclusively depicted native German people and encouraged heterosexual German couples to have children in the hopes of returning to a true native populace. These advertisements have also been criticized for their advocacy of traditional gender roles and family values and for reinstating the idea of German purity.

However, concerns around the AfD go far beyond policy, as the party has held questionable views regarding the country’s Nazi past. A big objective led by the AfD and its supporters has been to demolish the firewall, a term referring to the open condemnation and banning of Nazi-affiliated slogans, symbols, and gestures. Ending this societal norm would further the party’s aim to place less societal focus on the Holocaust and, in turn, remove structures that punish those who use harmful language. This would benefit AfD leaders: In 2017, an AfD party official was fined for using the Nazi-era phrase “Everything for Germany” during a speech. Later on, this same official called the Berlin Holocaust Memorial a “monument of shame,” arguing that the country needs to completely change how it remembers its past. Similarly, Weidel has referred to Holocaust remembrance as a “cult of shame,” a phrase often used by Holocaust deniers and anti-semites to diminish memorialization efforts.

What is further concerning is that international supporters have supported the party’s mission to distance Germany from its past. In the run-up to the 2025 elections, Elon Musk spoke at an AfD rally where he encouraged the country to end its period of guilt. He told the audience to “be proud of German culture” and not to “lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything.” United States Vice President JD Vance shared a similar sentiment at the Munich Security Council, stating that “there is no room for firewalls” with free speech. Not only have these efforts resulted in a return to Nazi-era rhetoric and rejection of the past, but it has also led to the sharing of misinformation. In an interview with Elon Musk, Weidel touted that Hitler “wasn’t a conservative” and that “he was a communist, socialist guy,” despite his recorded hatred of communism and its supporters. As the party and its supporters –both foreign and domestic– continue to push back against firewall practices, Germany could see a return to the use of Nazi-era rhetoric and blooming ignorance regarding its history, a future that could put the current state of democracy in the country at risk.

The common thread between these policies and ideology is that they all aim to reinstate national pride in German culture at the expense of inclusivity and diversity, which have been fought for since the aftermath of World War II. This allows for the normalization of nativism, along with placing nationalism and conservatism back into the mainstream.

German protestors march carrying a sign that reads "Bjorn Hocke (an AfD politician) Is A Nazi". — Image 3: Protestors declare “Bjorn Hocke (an AfD politician) Is A Nazi.” Source: Yahoo Images

Impacts of Wealth Inequality

A myriad of factors could have contributed to the AfD’s sudden rise, one of which was national wealth inequality, specifically the divide between former East and West Germany. During the reunification of these territories in 1990, East Germany, a former communist society, struggled to adapt to the economy of the West due to its use of outdated technology and reliance on heavy industry. Because of this, many East Germans lacked the necessary training to work in a more modern society, entering this period of unification by losing their jobs and struggling to find new opportunities. The impacts of this are still being felt over 30 years later, as former West Germans on average hold double the amount of wealth as their East German counterparts. This divide is no longer just economic; it is now political. Recent election maps show that AfD was the popular choice in the vast majority of former East German states. This region has also recently helped the party clench its first state-level position in 2024, showing the rapid growth in the AfD over the recent years.

This development is not unique to Germany, as it has been shown that increased wealth inequality positively influences the popularity of right-wing populist ideology. As Equality Trust explains, extreme wealth inequality can lead to an erosion of trust in democratic institutions and politicians, likely influenced by feelings of deprivation and isolation. As inequality rises, these emotions become more commonly felt as populations feel excluded from society, drawing people towards populist parties on both sides of the political spectrum. This would explain why, in the case of Germany, the Left Party also saw an increase in popularity throughout the East. Furthermore, it has been found that a one-unit increase in income inequality almost directly translates to increased support for populist parties. Similarly, a small increase in wealth inequality can have a moderate impact on institutional trust, meaning that even small raises in national wealth disparity can have larger impacts on citizen approval in democratic institutions. This can influence what candidates are chosen and explain why it seems many people are turning towards anti-establishment, nationalistic politicians. While this tendency towards right-wing populism normally occurs when coupled with prior feelings of nationalism and political paranoia, increasing gaps between the wealthy and poorer segments of society can push people to support more extremist right-wing factions. This realization could help explain how the AfD has quickly risen to the mainstream and why such large voting differences occurred between former East and West Germany.

Conclusion

Between the party’s Nazi-reminiscent rhetoric, external pressure to detach from its past atrocities and the modern-day manifestations of long-standing wealth inequality, this rise in the AfD is worth following. Though it is unlikely that the party will hold consistent parliamentary authority, it does risk expanding influence in the future and eroding democratic stability in Germany. This event also follows the global trend towards conservatism and specifically the impact this has had on democratic backsliding within Europe.

The Need of the WHO

On January 20th, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). This, however, was not President Trump’s first time withdrawing from the organization; in July 2020, he signed a similar executive order. However, due to the one-year notice for withdrawal, it never took place, as President Bident revered the order. The withdrawal took place primarily due to the mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the “inability to demonstrate independence from the political influence of WHO member states.”

What is the WHO?

The WHO was established in 1948 as a specialized agency of the United Nations, consisting of 194 countries. The main role of the non-governmental organization is to set global health standards; serving as a multilateral organization motivates collaboration between all partner countries to coordinate international health response. This coordination also translates into supporting other partner countries during health crises.

One of the WHO’s roles is gathering and evaluating data from all over the world to understand the current status of health. This data spans regions and represents the holistic health of the world. Through these analyses, acute crises can be addressed in a streamlined way, and larger trends in health can be used as benchmarks to denote progress, ensuring sustained efforts.

Beyond the technical role of the WHO, it helps with on-the-ground support in countries across the world. By working to mobilize vaccines and drugs, individuals from underrepresented or marginalized communities can gain access to life-saving care. Beyond the mobilization of resources, the WHO helps coordinate humanitarian response and volunteers to ensure resources are being used appropriately. The holistic nature of the WHO and the support they provide ensures that countries worldwide are best equipped to support the health and well-being of their citizens.

Photo 1: Photo of WHO Poster in 1988Source: Flickr — Photo 1: Photo of WHO Poster in 1988
Source: Flickr

What has the WHO accomplished?

The WHO has tussled with many different diseases worldwide. For example, the WHO has helped eradicate smallpox worldwide. From leveraging the vaccine developed by Edward Jenner in 1796 to intensifying the vaccine mobilization plan in 1967, smallpox was eradicated by 1980, with the last known natural case in Somalia in 1977. This hallmark success for global health represents the first and only infectious disease ever to be eradicated.

The WHO has contributed to many other successes in the past as well, one being helping reduce polio cases worldwide by 99% since 1988. As of 2022, the number of endemic countries decreased by 123, representing the power of the WHO in reducing the global disease burden.

The visible and less visible responsibilities of the WHO were most recently put on the front stage during the COVID-19 crisis. At the pandemic’s peak, the WHO collected data from across the world to analyze its outcomes and progress made through community health initiatives and vaccine rollouts. Beyond this, the WHO consistently released situational reports, reporting on the research they have collected thus far. Though the incidence of COVID-19 has decreased significantly and is no longer a public health emergency of international concern, the WHO still works to contain the illness and reduce adverse outcomes.

What is the impact of the US withdrawing from the WHO?

The US is one of the largest contributors to the WHO. Supporting around 12%-15% of the budget in the fiscal year 2022-2023, the US has contributed to the investment of millions of jobs, work opportunities, and streamlining functions. Without the US, all of these opportunities will stop in the upcoming fiscal year.

This support is not new to the US. Since World War II, the US has held this top funder spot, serving as a leader in global diplomacy. In an ever-globalized world, this role in the WHO affects our allies and our nation domestically. With this, the international community will suffer and have poorer health; without the investment in life-saving interventions and preventative systems, health is on the line for everyone.

Beyond the tangible impact of the withdrawal, if a decrease in health resilience is observed, there will be an increase in mistrust and a reduction in international cooperation. The withdrawal in both 2020 and 2025 resulted in increased mistrust by partnerships and organizations like Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and COVAX, as well as our geopolitical allies. By increasing the vulnerability in our relationships, there is an increased risk of adverse outcomes that will compromise the health of millions worldwide. This distrust may result in the withdrawal of other vital multilateral agreements; demonstrating a lack of cooperation may result in other countries questioning their commitment to the WHO and the overall responsibility to global health.

Beyond the political and financial nuances of the US withdrawing from the WHO, the most tangible impact is the compromise of future pandemic preparedness and the creation of vulnerabilities in the global health landscape. The WHO’s holistic role relies on support to share data and track emerging health threats. Without US support, these threats cannot be effectively analyzed and will result in weakened systems.

What can we learn from the 2025 withdrawal from the WHO?

As it is still early in the year, there is no promise about the legislation’s longevity. However, it reminds us all about the need for bipartisan commitment to global health and development. Not only is this a safeguard to protect our own nation, but it also helps us in terms of international engagement. US foreign policy should prioritize funding for health initiatives regardless of political leadership, working to legislate commitments to our global partners.

With lack of accountability being cited as the primary reason for withdrawal, it is integral for all entities to seek avenues to increase financial transparency and independence without compromising the organization’s day-to-day operations. Collective problem-solving is reinforced by working to advocate for improvements rather than abandoning the WHO.

The temporary absence of the US in the WHO has created a void that has weakened global health cooperation in a matter of weeks. Though the official withdrawal will take around a year to feel the impact, the impact is already being noted in the attitudes and perspectives on the global stage. There is a need to uphold health as a universal human right; developing policies prioritizing equitable healthcare access reinforces the idea that we cannot combat global health alone now without the US; there is a lot of vulnerability in the unknown space.

Impacts of Terminating USAID (United States Agency for International Developement)

Since early February, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been essentially disbanded, experiencing mass layoffs and the forced closure of its headquarters in Washington, D.C.. This follows President Donald Trump’s executive order, which halted all foreign assistance payments for 90 days, along with his administration’s narrative that the agency is plagued with fraud and programs that undermine national interests. Although this idea has continued to spread, the reality is that USAID is an important agency, both domestically and internationally. As United States foreign assistance funding constitutes a significant percentage of worldwide foreign aid, shutting down these programs jeopardizes the health and safety of various countries and communities but also poses issues for American citizens who work alongside these assistance efforts.

Image 1: USAID’s official logo. Source: Yahoo Images.

What is USAID?

USAID, the United States Agency for International Development, is a governmental agency that aims to assist countries undergoing humanitarian crises, support marginalized groups, and monitor democratic consolidation in recently formed democracies. These goals are achieved through agency-created programs and funding non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worldwide. Created in 1961, USAID was designed to fulfill the country’s moral obligation to use its wealth to assist other, less affluent nations while also countering the perceived influence of the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War. While it may work alongside these organizations, the agency functions independently from the Department of Defense and the Department of State. Having this separation grants USAID the flexibility to work more closely with civil society groups and local communities as opposed to communicating through upper-level government officials. Similarly, projects run by and funded through USAID are generally focused on achieving a long-term goal. This focus on connecting at the local level and supporting sustained health, growth, and democracy fosters long-lasting relations with partner countries– and this type of relationship varies significantly from more transactional, political relations seen in other diplomatic channels.

Impacts of USAID

With a budget of $71.9 billion in 2023 or 1.2 percent of that year’s federal budget, USAID is the largest donor of foreign assistance, contributing to over 40% of all foreign aid. This money is used to fund international organizations such as the World Food Program, the United Nations Children Fund, and countless other partners with similar missions, along with sponsoring numerous projects in over 120 countries. These projects include the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program designed to control the circulation of HIV/AIDS throughout heavily impacted countries. It is credited with “saving over 25 million lives, preventing millions of HIV infections, and supporting several countries to achieve HIV epidemic control,” working closely with more than 50 countries– many of those in South Africa. PEPFAR is managed, led, and largely funded by USAID, with the agency contributing to 20% of the program’s total budget. Overall, PEPFAR is viewed as a successful program, with a general increase in health outcomes in funded countries. USAID also seeks to eradicate the spread of other infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis (TB), where the agency is estimated to have saved the lives of more than 58 million patients.

USAID also directs funding to smaller, more localized NGOs. In several Eastern European countries, for instance, money is sent to support independent media outlets and democratic organizations that consolidate democracy in post-communist states. These NGOs ensure that private media companies can compete against historically inaccurate state media sources. The agency also partnered with women’s rights groups to fight for better treatment in societies where women often face discrimination.

A USAID worker helps two young boys. — Image 2: A USAID worker assists two young boys at a camp for internally displaced people. Source: Yahoo Images

Ramifications of USAID Termination

Global Impacts

The termination of USAID and the halt on foreign assistance have already begun to have negative global outcomes. In regards to medical care, the lack of funding for the PEPFAR program has triggered a suspension of medicine distribution and the closure of clinics throughout Africa, with the United Nations Program on HIV and AIDS estimating that almost 3,000 preventable HIV infections have since occurred. Similarly, the lack of adequate funding has left many clinics defunct, with officials in the Democratic Republic of Congo unable to afford air conditioning to keep necessary medicines cold. Furthermore, Syria has seen the firing of over 150 medical officials along with the cessation of 10 crucial clinics in one of the country’s most dire regions. Similar risks are faced with numerous diseases, such as tuberculosis. Without adequate funding, clinics and NGOs can no longer afford to test for or treat TB patients, nor can they maintain the staff necessary to carry out these actions. Since TB is an airborne illness, its spread is not confined to one particular area, meaning it can quickly become a much larger issue, thus making its impact even greater.

This halt in assistance will also likely contribute to greater global inequality, where organizations that promote education, women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, and refugee assistance will likely face large funding gaps and be unable to achieve their goals.

Geopolitical Impacts

Though many argue that USAID projects are often antithetical to the country’s national interests, the reality is that the agency allows the United States to create long-lasting, positive relations with partnering countries while preventing the extension of influence from its adversaries. Ceasing funds abruptly means that affected communities and US relations are both at risk. By turning away from foreign aid, other countries will step in to fill these funding gaps. However, by doing so, these countries can exert soft power, challenging the US hegemony. Efforts are already being made by China, which has begun to fund projects in former USAID recipient regions. Funding issues aside, this rapid change to foreign aid distribution may also reduce global trust in the US as countries question the nation’s ability to follow through on projects. This distrust could further weaken America’s diplomatic relations with both former USAID recipient countries and with new countries in the future. In short, by cutting funding, diplomatic relations are strained, and a space for competing hegemonic powers is opened.

Domestic Impact

While cutting USAID primarily impacts countries abroad, this termination of funding also carries domestic ramifications. As the agency is the leading provider of global humanitarian food aid, cutting USAID has also meant ending government contracts with farmers. In 2020, the federal government bought $2 billion worth of food aid from American farmers, and while this number is a small portion of the entire agriculture market, it does provide stability for those contract employees and fills a demand gap for specific grains. Even food aid received prior to the funding freeze has yet to be delivered and it is not being sent to its planned destination.

The abrupt termination of USAID also raises questions regarding democracy and legality in the United States, as the actions taken by the current administration undermine Congress’s authority over agency creation and budgetary power. Agency creation and elimination requires Congressional approval; however, nothing has been brought to the legislative branch that requests to dissolve USAID. Similarly, these decisions are guided by the Department of Government Efficiency, a temporary contract organization. The dismantling of the agency has triggered a flurry of lawsuits, with one of them expecting a final hearing on February 21st. Since terminating USAID in this fashion is illegal, the result of the lawsuit and subsequent actions demand close attention.

Conclusion

Cutting USAID leaves the US and the world worse off. As the nation contributes a significant portion of aid funding, countries will struggle to fill the gap, leaving poorer nations to struggle. This termination also creates issues for the US. In a time when nations continue to compete for power, the US’s seclusion from foreign aid could allow other countries to expand their influence. Similarly, diplomatic relations could be weakened as aid relations are severed with little warning. American citizens also reap the consequences, seeing large layoffs and the cancelation of government-farmer contracts. This global situation is in desperate need of monitoring as it is still unclear to what extent aid-receiving countries will struggle.

The Future of Trees in the Amazon and the World

If someone offered to pay you to keep trees thriving in your backyard, would you take the deal? This is the new idea proposed by Brazil to tackle climate change, starting with trees.

Prioritizing environmental sustainability has been a challenge in Brazil over the past few years. In contrast to its predecessor, the new administration has expressed its desire to restore sustainability efforts and implement stronger tree protection policies.

Image 1: Within the Amazon. 27/02/2016. Photo: Valdemir Cunha/Greenpeace. Source: Yahoo Images

Background on the Amazon

Looking back at history, the reasons for implementing financial incentives to protect trees date back to the 1970s. Under a military dictatorship then, Brazil had clear plans to develop and integrate the Amazon into the national economy by increasing agriculture and cattle breeding in the region. To achieve this, the government incentivized people to move and start their own agricultural villages deep within the forest. Following the dream of expanding land and conquering the Amazon, Brazil continued to utilize the forest for economic development by building highways, allowing farmers to settle and work their way into the forest.

The rhetoric of using the Amazon for national economic profit was put on hold when President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva took office in 2003. Then, several steps were taken to protect the Amazon. Little by little, legal protections were put in place, with the help of Marina Silva, who was appointed to the environment ministry in 2003 to set up a plan to deal with deforestation. At the time, only 28% of the forest was protected. Therefore, the government expanded protections by demarcating Indigenous territories, adding reserves where business activity was banned, and increasing the land where nut harvesting and rubber-tapping took place because of their low contamination and impact on the forest. To find a balance between economic profit and sustainability, the environment ministry stretched law protections to 47% of the Amazon. What’s more, the budget for the Brazilian Institute of Environmental and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA)—a police agency that investigates people committing illegal deforestation—also increased.

By 2012, Brazil made significant progress towards sustainable solutions. What once was a call of worry by world news over the rapid deforestation shifted to optimism about the Amazon’s recovery. As awareness of the rainforest’s significance grew, so did the public uproar. Luciana Gatti, senior researcher at Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, emphasized the Amazon’s critical role in absorbing CO2. However, due to deforestation, the Amazon is reaching a turning point where it will emit more carbon than it absorbs. Unfortunately, when Jair Bolsonaro took office in 2019, his policies revived the development-focused rhetoric of the 1970s. Bolsonaro, known for being a critic of environmental protection, rejected the idea that the Amazon is the heritage of humanity, insisting that it belongs to Brazil and to Brazil only.

During the 2018 campaign, Bolsonaro vowed not to designate “one more centimeter” of Indigenous territory. Human Rights Watch puts Bolsonaro’s agenda in perspective. With 241 Indigenous territories awaiting demarcation, illegal logging, mining, and land grabbing in Indigenous lands increased by 137 percent in 2020 compared with 2018. The non-profit Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA) reported that deforestation in Indigenous territories during Bolsonaro’s first three years in office increased by 138 percent compared to 2016-2018. What’s more, the Report Violence Against Indigenous Peoples in Brazil linked high COVID-19 deaths to the government’s poor response and lack of monitoring in the Amazon. As a result of government negligence, invaders committing illegal activities in the area spread the virus through Indigenous villages.

In addition, Bolsonaro’s administration reversed several environmental policies, weakening IBAMA. The agency experienced budget cuts of up to 30 percent from 2019 to 2020 and decreased staff by 55 percent during the same year.

The amazon rainforest is burning as Bolsonaro fans the flames, from orinoco tribune. — Image 2: The Amazon rainforest burning from increased deforestation. Source: Yahoo Images

Overall, indigenous territories became more vulnerable thanks to weakening agencies and relaxed environmental regulations.

The Secretary for Indigenous Peoples Acre State Government, Francisca Arara, continues to emphasize how critical Indigenous people are to preserving the forest and to guard and provide protection services that benefit everyone. Arara also explains that among the helpful laws that have pushed the improvement in deforestation are the jurisdictional programs such as the REDD+ program, the SISA law, and the demarcation of territories, all of which promote sustainable use of land and natural resources, and give Indigenous people autonomy and over spaces they know how to take care of best.

What is the plan?

After a change in leadership, Brazil proposes a fund of $125 billion to pay developing countries for the trees they protect. In other words, it is an incentive to stop deforestation. The Tropical Forests Forever Facility or T.F.F.F would be an investment-based fund, not financed by donations per se. The plan is to follow a bank’s framework: get deposits and reinvest them for a profit. It would look like this: Rich nations and big philanthropies would loan $25 billion to T.F.F.F, which would be repaid with interest.

The money invested would help attract $100 billion from private investors. Then, the fund would reinvest the $125 billion in a portfolio that could generate enough returns to repay investors. The excess would be used to pay for about 70 developing countries based on how much healthy tropical forest they still have. The countries that receive funds would be paid $4 per hectare of land with old-growth or restored trees and would incur a $400 fee for each hectare of forest lost.

Some of the controversies or pushbacks surrounding the project are part of figuring out the program’s logistics: the risk of subjecting the funds to the swings of financial markets, the controls and regulations of how the money will be spent, etc.

The environment as a human right

Recognizing a healthy environment as a human right is a relatively recent development. International agreements, such as the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, acknowledge the importance of a clean and healthy environment for a good standard of living. These agreements emphasize the government’s responsibility to take action against environmental pollution and its risks. According to the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the right to health should be extended to those factors that determine good health, such as access to safe drinking water and sanitation.

However, debates continue regarding how to define and codify into law the rights of nature, as well as challenges of jurisdiction and resource availability and allocation at the local and international levels.

In 2022, the UN declared a healthy environment a human right. While this declaration is not legally binding, it reinforces the notion that a clean and sustainable environment is essential to a dignified standard of living.

A promising approach to addressing environmental degradation is using financial incentives to combat deforestation. This model means hope for developing countries that face a difficult choice between economic growth and ecological conservation. To the greediest, making money over some trees may be tempting. Initiatives like the T.F.F.F seem to be a forward-thinking funding mechanism that could be applied to fund programs and organizations worldwide to solve human rights issues. Encouraging global collaboration on environmental protection promotes the recognition of a healthy environment as a fundamental human right.

Arbitrary Detentions in Venezuela

Imagine being arrested in the middle of the night—no warrant, no explanation. This is the reality in Venezuela, where arbitrary detentions are used as a tool of political repression. As noted in “Behind the Ballot: Corruption, Repression, and Hope in the 2024 Venezuelan Elections,” politically motivated arbitrary detentions have run rampant in the country, years before and after Maduro’s victory was announced on July 28^th by the National Electoral Council (CNE).

What Is Arbitrary Detention?

The United Nations defines arbitrary detentions as the deprivation of personal liberty (inability to leave at will) paired with unfairness, injustice, unpredictability, and a lack of proper legal procedures. Following the definition, Amnesty International also identified the patterns of arbitrary arrest in Venezuela to be: arrest without warrants; enforced disappearance followed by arrest; the use of torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; use of military tribunals; the use of special courts such as courts for terrorism cases; undue delays in investigating times and, subjection to criminal proceedings that make no progress and restrict the persons’ liberty, and retaliation as an aim of detention.

National Bolivarian Police (PNB) arrest student during demonstration — Image 1: National Bolivarian Police (PNB) arrest a student during a demonstration. Source: Yahoo Images

While protests have sparked and died down in the country, organizations such as Amnesty International, Foro Penal, and Observatorio Venezolano de Conflictividad Social have kept track of protests and detainees, documenting their experiences and the violations committed against them. Their websites contain contact forms and question banks to reach out for questions, information, and services.

The ultimate purpose of arbitrary detentions, as determined by these organizations, is to neutralize any perceived threat against the Maduro administration, where criticism is ultimately rejected, censored, and attacked. The key targets are activists, human rights defenders, protesters, and anyone suspected of opposing the government and its policies.

Inside Venezuela’s Institutions

Based on research on the correlation between stigmatization and politically motivated arbitrary detentions carried out by Amnesty International and the stories mentioned previously, both state and non-state actors are behind the detentions: SEBIN, Directorate General of Military Counterintelligence (DGMC), Local police, and armed colectivos. Since 2019, the Bolivarian National Guard (GNB) and the Directorate General of Military National Intelligence (DGCIM) continue to be the first and second main perpetrators of arbitrary detentions, third and fourth places occupied by the Special Action Forces (FAES) of the Bolivarian National Police (PNB) and by the PNB themselves.

As mentioned before, legal institutions continue to be manipulated by the misuse of anti-terrorism and public security laws to justify arrests. As a result, 33.3% of these cases were brought before ordinary courts with criminal justification, 9% before courts with special jurisdiction over terrorism, and 6.6% before courts with military jurisdiction. Lack of judicial independence is not uncommon since there is interference from the executive branch.

At least 60 people arbitrarily detained were prosecuted in special courts with jurisdiction over terrorism in 2019. What’s more, invoking the Code of Military Justice—which gives the military courts jurisdiction over military offenses not only committed by military personnel but also by civilians—has led to the persecution of hundreds of civilians before military courts. They are commonly charged with treason or rebellion. In fact, the military courts do not meet the requirements for impartiality and independence, reflecting a poor separation of powers and influence from the executive branch, according to the International Commission of Jurists.

From Protests to Prison: A Timeline of Arbitrary Detentions

2013-2019

Reports of inhumane treatment and torture of political detainees surfaced in 2013 after Maduro won the April elections, and opposition leader Henrique Capriles accused him of fraud. Protests broke out in the streets, resulting in many detentions. As a response, a civil rights group filed a complaint to the International Criminal Court in Hague to investigate violations of human rights committed against detainees.

In 2017, protests sparked again to express displeasure towards a ruling issued by the Supreme Court that made the National Assembly—the unicameral legislature of the country—powerless. As a result, 5,000 people were detained. A rights group shares how the detainees were beaten, sexually assaulted, or given electrical shocks, according to AP News.

Emirlendris Benitez is one of many arbitrary detainees. She was detained in 2018 for alleged links to a drone attack against President Nicolás Maduro. She reported torture and inhumane treatment while in custody. According to the report and a compilation of similar cases, she forcefully disappeared for a few weeks after her detention, and her pregnancy was terminated without her knowledge or consent. After being subjected to torture, she was transferred to a medical facility in July 2023 and now requires a wheelchair. Amnesty International shared her story and advocated for her immediate release in an urgent action announcement.

TOPSHOT-VENEZUELA-CRISIS-OPPOSITION-PROTEST — Image 2: A Venezuelan opposition demonstrator waves a flag at the riot police in a clash during a protest against President Nicolas Maduro, in Caracas on May 8, 2017. Source: Yahoo Images (Federico Parra /AFP/Getty Images)

Fear as a weapon: how arbitrary detentions terrorize Venezuelan communities

One common tactic utilized by authorities during these years is the so-called “Nights of Terror,” when officials raid and attack residential areas. Forty-seven of these were reported between April and July 2017. According to the recollection of witnesses, the incidents follow a pattern:

First, the officials (from the GNS, the CONAS, or even the SEBIN) burst into homes, breaking down front gates and security doors. They would fire indiscriminately into the houses using riot control equipment and weapons (tear gas and pellet guns). Even after the residents asked to see the search warrants, the officials continued the search without showing them. In private homes, officials shot off locks, broke down gates, destroyed property, and threatened the residents. They demanded to know the whereabouts of people who participated in protests. The raids are frequent and repeated, characterized by searches without a warrant.

Many children have been affected, as those who witnessed home raids are now scared of the National Guard officers. Not only do victims feel vulnerable as institutions collapse into corruption and impunity, but they also feel more terrified and angry than protected.

During the Covid-19 pandemic: 2020-2023

Arbitrary detentions continue amid the COVID-19 pandemic, during which NGOs documented how the state of emergency—decreed by the president—was used to crack down on dissent. The decree not only requires face masks and limits movement and certain activities, as stated by Human Rights Watch, but it also authorizes inspections at the discretion of security forces if there is reasonable suspicion that someone is violating the decree. Among the affected are human rights lawyers, journalists, and public service officials.

Journalists such as Marco Antoima or human rights lawyers like Ivan Varguez have been charged with inciting hatred and criminal activities, rebellion, or unlawful association.

International Response and What’s Next?

Actors in the international system have taken steps to put pressure on the Maduro administration. The United States has imposed a number of sanctions dating back to 2015. These sanctions account mostly for blocking property and assets. The European Union, on its part, approved an embargo on arms and materials in 2017 to countries that may use it for repression. In addition, between 2018 and 2021, about 30 officials were sanctioned, freezing their assets and prohibiting them from entering nations of the E.U.

The journey to justice may be frail, and the fight is far from over. You can help by supporting organizations like the ones mentioned here, sharing detainee stories, and demanding more international actions. Some ways available to support this organization include legal consultation, logistics, physical therapies, psychological therapies, transportation, medical treatments, or other services. Registration on their website is required. On the other hand, Observatorio Venezolano de Conflictividad Social has a submission box on its website for requests to contact the support staff. You can help by supporting organizations like the ones mentioned here, sharing detainee stories, and demanding more international actions.

More detailed stories are available in Foro Penal’s report on “Crackdown on Dissent, Brutality, Torture and Political Persecution in Venezuela.”

Election Integrity in Romania

The Romanian November presidential elections have prompted many questions about democracy and election integrity within the nation. After the elections were conducted, it was reported that independent and wildcard candidate Calin Georgescu garnered 22.94% of votes and won by plurality; however, this outcome has since been annulled and the second round of voting has been canceled. Romanian courts and intelligence have cited alleged Russian interference, questionable campaign finance practices, and inappropriate use of the social-media app TikTok as reasons for rejection. While the elections have been rescheduled, many Romanian citizens remain concerned about their country’s ability to conduct free and fair elections going forward, thus leading to apprehension regarding Romanian democracy. Similarly, the suspected Russian involvement in the election warrants further examination.

Romanian voters cast their ballot during the 2024 elections. They are in a classroom set up to turn in ballots. — Image 1: Romanian citizens cast their ballots. Source: Yahoo Images

Presidential Elections

The Romanian presidential elections were held on November 24, 2024. While many well-established candidates ran for this position, the winner, having achieved 22.94% of the votes, was Calin Georgescu, an independent candidate. Prior to the election, polls estimated a 5th-place finish for Georgescu, resulting in greater shock at his victory. Similarly, his policies are at odds with many of the other candidates, as he vowed to distance the country from global organizations such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Georgescu gained much of his notoriety from TikTok, where he gained popularity by attracting young voters, targeting voters’ frustrations, and spreading misinformation. He also encouraged his supporters to share his content and allegedly paid users to promote his campaign without disclosing the partnership. Since Georgescu gained a plurality, he was moved into the second round of voting, competing against second-place and popular candidate Elena Lasconi.

On December 2nd, the Romanian courts requested that the votes be recounted; however, the reason for this was not made public. Even though a recount was underway, the courts insisted that second-round voting would continue and that no evidence suggested that Georgescu’s victory was invalid. Many citizens question the conduct used to carry out the recount, as no guidelines were publicly declared regarding how this analysis would occur.

Calin Georgescu is surrounded by reporters and microphones, being interviewed following his first place win in the recent elections — Image 2: Calin Georgescu is interviewed following his first-place victory. Source: Yahoo Images

Annulled Results

On December 6th, two days before the runoff election, the initial results were annulled and the second round of voting was canceled after Romanian intelligence declared that the election was undermined. Interference was found through cyber activities, most notably through TikTok, where authorities allege that the social media app gave Georgescu “preferential treatment.” Furthermore, officials suggest that fake, Russian-made accounts bolstered Georgescu’s page into popularity as it led to increased engagement and content circulation. With Romanian courts arguing that citizens have an inherent right to access accurate information about candidates, this rampant sharing of misinformation, allegedly encouraged by foreign influences, meant that this right was undermined, and thus warranted the results be annulled. Other sources of online Russian collusion were cited as reasons to cancel the election and reject its results. However, evidence and further explanation have not been revealed to the public. While Russia has ultimately rejected these claims, it has since led the European Union to enact stricter social media campaign regulations.

Campaign finance issues were also uncovered, with authorities finding that candidates reported receiving and spending zero dollars throughout the course of the campaign trail. Officials imply the use of third-party financing, where money is sent through various accounts so that its origin remains unknown. This goes against standards set out by domestic Romanian law and the European Union, where campaign funding sources are expected to be disclosed. With these standards in place, Romanian courts argue that annulling the election results further signals its desire to uphold democratic principles along with domestic and regional legislation.

New elections will be held on May 4th and 18th. Regardless, many citizens continue to protest for free and fair elections, as the annulment has led many citizens to question the nation’s electoral capabilities. In the meantime, President Klaus Iohannis will remain in power. As of now, it is unclear if Georgescu will be allowed to partake.

Countless protestors rally outside government building, carrying Romanian flags — Image 3: Romanian citizens protest for free and fair elections. Source: Yahoo Images

Geopolitical Incentives

While there isn’t enough evidence to prove that Russian sources interfered in the Romanian elections, there are reasons to explain why Russia might have an interest in influencing the outcome. For starters, under a parliamentary system, the president plays a significant role in foreign policy, as they ratify international treaties, initiate or disband diplomatic missions, and communicate with foreign leaders. If Russia were to want to create warmer relations with Romania, influencing who becomes president would play an important role in achieving this goal. Another objective could be to distance the country from Western institutions, such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Trade Organization. By promoting Georgescu, a candidate who openly blames such organizations for the country’s problems, Russia can undermine trust in these institutions, ones that shame Moscow for its imperialist and authoritarian actions. Furthermore, Romania is home to critical NATO infrastructure, such as the largest NATO military base in Europe. This base strengthens NATO’s position on the Black Sea, an area where Russia poses military dominance.

These reasons also tie into the Russia-Ukraine War. Throughout the course of this conflict, Romania has made great military contributions to support Ukraine. To achieve a victory in its imperialist conquest of Ukraine, Russia might find it beneficial to undermine Romania’s support for its neighboring country.

Impacts on Democracy

The recent election annulment could have a great impact on the state of democracy in Romania. Though much consolidation has occurred since its commitment to democracy in 1991, the nation is still working on strengthening its democratic institutions. Because of this, the choices made by the Romanian government going forward could have long-lasting ramifications, such as weakening trust in such institutions. The Romanian courts argue that its decision was meant to align the nation further with the EU and to restore trust in its electoral process, but this has clearly not been the case. However, democracy could be further consolidated if this issue begins to be handled with transparency. By showcasing to Romanian citizens that Russian or other foreign involvement was found and terminated, it can indicate that the government had the ability to identify and remove election collusion. Furthermore, releasing intelligent reports and investigations provides necessary transparency during a political crisis that can reinforce trust in democracy and the government. Lastly, directing more resources to civil society groups can lead to the creation of safeguards against further interference. While it seems that Romania is on the cusp of democratic backsliding, by moving forward with transparency, the government can demonstrate its self-declared commitment to democracy.

Conclusion

The recent annulment of the Romanian election results has triggered many questions regarding electoral integrity within the country. Campaign finance inconsistencies, the sharing of misinformation, and alleged Russian involvement, through both TikTok and other undisclosed sources are at the root of this political crisis. While this prompts many questions regarding the validity of other elections and overall national security, by moving forward with transparency, the government can further strengthen its democratic institutions and regain its citizens’ trust. If not, the nation could risk democratic backsliding, which is being seen in various European countries. Similarly, given its proximity to Ukraine, Romania is at risk of being caught in the crossfire if this alleged Russian collusion is found to be accurate and nothing is done to prevent it. Overall, to ensure Romania remains committed to democracy, international attention is warranted.

A Woman’s World in Afghanistan: An Update on Women’s Rights Violations in Afghanistan

Women protesting the Taliban's retaking of power. — Image 1: Women protesting the Taliban’s retaking of power. Source: Yahoo Images.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all humans, no matter their sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, etc., have distinct rights. These include the rights to property, religious freedom, education, government participation, and freedom of movement within a country and outside a country, to name a few. Speaking about what we think and moving freely in public are some of the most basic rights that should be available to all humans, no matter where they are located or who they are. For the past 20 years, Afghan women have fought hard for their freedoms and rights to live life as they see fit. These are rights that have now been stripped from them once again, a reflection of the first Taliban rule.

In 1994, the Taliban surfaced as militant leaders of Afghanistan as a result of a civil war that the country had recently experienced. From 1994 to 2001, the Taliban reigned over Afghanistan, continuously revoking women’s rights. Those rights included education, healthcare, freedom of movement, and involvement in political affairs. If a woman was to leave the house, she was not allowed to show any skin. Burq as, which are loose clothing that covers the entire body and face, were a requirement. This article will update women’s rights violations in the recent years.

The Taliban’s Continued Attack on Education:

Image 2: Five Taliban members holding weapons. Source: Yahoo Images.

The Taliban had issued empty promises of upholding women’s rights when regaining control of Afghanistan. Within days of assuming control in August 2021, the Taliban had banned co-education and made it illegal for a man to teach a girl. Not a month had passed before their next attack on women’s education came to the fold. This time, women were prohibited from secondary education, and their level of education access was reduced to that of 6th grade. Throughout the years following the Taliban’s return to power, women and their right to education have been tirelessly subjugated to attacks from the Taliban. For a timeline of women’s rights that have been revoked since 2021, look at the United States Institute of Peace website for tracking the mistreatment of women by the Taliban.

In fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV) countries, women are significantly more likely to be put out of school. FCV countries are countries that have conflict and violence occurring, causing the country to be in a fragile state. The W orld Bank Group, which measures gender gaps in education as well as in the economy, labeled Afghanistan as an FCV count ry. Education is detrimental to the development of any country. The restrictions on education are a way to perpetuate a cycle of poverty and compliance with repressive governments. According to the World Bank Group, education promotes health, stability, peace, and reductions in gender gap and poverty.

The first thing that was taken from women in Afghanistan in 2021 was their right to education. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, the article emphasizes the right to education as a universal right. This is a right that is infringed upon in many countries and is especially evident in Afghanistan. For a more in-depth look into women’s education in Afghanistan in the months following the Taliban, check out Nikhita Mudium’s blog post on Women’s Education in Afghanistan.

Recap: 2024 Restrictions on Women in Afghanistan

Four Afghan women wearing blue burqas while walking. — Image 3: Four Afghan women wearing blue burqas while walking with a little boy. Source: Yahoo Images.

In a report done by Human Rights Watch, one of the most visited news updates of 2024 was about Afghanistan and the Taliban’s rule. The rest of the world has watched in horror as windows looking into the kitchens of homes have been boarded shut. The very image and the very sound of women’s voices are becoming something that is silenced and stowed away. As of August 2024, women’s voices are not allowed to be heard in public. The excuse of tempting a man has closed off women’s access to public spaces such as parks and educational facilities.

Another attack on women came in the form of shutting beauty salons down, which in turn put nearly 60,000 women out of jobs. Not only has this newest ban taken away further employment of women, but it also took away safe places that women had outside of the home. Additionally, women no longer have positions in healthcare. To further add to the turmoil, male healthcare workers are often not allowed to examine women, leaving many without medical aid. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that the freedom of movement within one’s own country is a universal right. Not only are women banned from public spaces, but they are also not allowed to leave the house without the accompaniment of a male relative.

In the most recent development, the Taliban has demanded that NGOs (Nongovernmental organizations) operating in Afghanistan must get rid of female st aff. Any NGO that does not comply will have their license to operate in Afghanistan revoked. NGOs are voluntary organizations that are not affiliated with a government that provides services for the public. This would greatly affect Afghanistan’s most vulnerable group of people: Afghan women and children.

While the international response has been to limit support and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, this response is more likely to harm the women within the country. Especially after a climate crisis, the lack of aid directly affects women and children the most. For a more in-depth evaluation of natural disasters, lack of humanitarian aid, and its substantial effect on women in Afghanistan, read Delisha Valacheril’s post, Deadly Earthquake in Afghanistan Magnifies Gender Apartheid Under Taliban Control.

Afghan Women Will Not Be Silenced:

Afghan women at overlook wearing colorful clothing. — Image 4: Afghan women at an overlook wearing a variety of colorful clothing. Source: Yahoo Images.

In 2024, Human Rights Watch reported that artists are contributing pieces in protest of the Taliban and their treatment of Afghan women. Rada Akbar and Fatima Wojohat are both Afghan artists who were forced to flee after the Taliban’s retaking of Afghanistan. Their artwork expresses the struggle of Afghan women, as well as the strength and resilience that they possess. Their artwork is an attempt to amplify the voices that the Taliban desperately tries to suppress. In a feature by Human Rights Watch, Rada Akbar’s art is a representation of the importance women play in society as well as the diversity of Persian women.

In her statement to Afghan women, she says, “Your dreams are not just valid–they are vital, and your voice carries weight, even in silence.”

Along with that, in September of 2024, a meeting at UN Headquarters–which included the Women’s Forum on Afghanistan–discussed life in Afghanistan for women since the return of the Taliban in 2021. The UN, since then, has stated its intent to amplify the voices of women in Afghanistan, as well as to not be stagnant in the organization’s opposition to gender-based discrimination. Without the participation of women, there will be no successful future for Afghanistan.

It is imperative that the world continue to pay attention to the atrocities that are occurring in Afghanistan. As always, one way to help is to stay informed and to help spread awareness by sharing reliable news sources. One of the best things that can be done is to listen to the voices of Afghan women that the Taliban tries so hard to snuff out. Their voices matter, their dreams matter, and most importantly, the success of their future matters.